There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules to prevent the Panel f rom
determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to f ile a
Response. ...This finding is based on the offering of ancillary services related to the Complainant
under the name “Explore IG” (displaying a f igurative element very similar to the Complainant’s f igurative
trademark) together with pop-up ads of fers when Internet users attempt to use Respondent’s services.
...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name <f inecofx.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The disputed domain name <f inecofx.org> is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.
3. ...The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <f inecobank.com>, registered on June 17, 2006.
The disputed domain names <f inecofx.com> and <f inecofx.org> were registered on June 22, 2023 and
August 2, 2023, respectively. ...
2023-10-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was redirected
to the Complainant’s of f icial website and it is used to impersonate the Complainant in f raudulent email
correspondence with its suppliers. ...The Panel f inds this additional letter constitutes a common,
obvious or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s marks or a typosquatting case that points to an
intention on the part of the Respondent to generate confusion or af f iliation with the Complainant, its
trademarks and its of f icial website.
...
2024-01-24 - Case Details
However, such use
must meet specif ic conditions, including the requirement that the respondent accurately disclose its
relationship with the trademark owner and not falsely suggest af f iliation.
Here, the Panel f inds that the Respondent’s use does not meet these conditions. The websites to which the
disputed domain names resolve do not disclose any lack of relationship with the Complainant and, on the
contrary, are presented in a manner that suggests an of f icial or authorized source. ...The Panel f inds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the ZYN trademark at the time of
registration of the disputed domain names. ...
2026-04-08 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “residences” and “miami”, may bear on assessment of the second
and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or parking page) would not prevent
a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel
f inds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances
of this proceeding. ...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
Through the
merger, the Complainant has become owner of several trademarks in the designations THALER and
BANQUE THALER including the following (as per Appendix 7 to the Complaint):
- Swiss trademark registration No. 470901 THALER (word/figurative), registered on March 29, 2000, for
banking and f inancial services in Class 36;
- Swiss trademark registration No.476020 BANQUE THALER (word/f igurative), registered on
September 11, 2000, for banking and f inancial services in Class 36;
- Swiss trademark registration No. 827352 BANQUE THALER (word/figurative), registered on February
28, 2025, for banking and f inancial services in Class 36.
...Finally, the Complainant asserts that in the banking
sector lookalike domain names are primary instruments for phishing and f inancial f raud. Against this
background, the passive holding of the disputed domain name for which there is no plausible good-faith
explanation is to be considered a latent threat to the integrity of the f inancial system and a risk of f raud.
...
2026-04-21 - Case Details
Accordingly,
the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on May 7, 2025.
page 2
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 2025. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. ...The addition of a hyphen and the term “usa” in one of the disputed
domain names does not detract f rom this f inding.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-06-03 - Case Details
The emails from the Respondent were disguised as an email f rom an employee of the
Complainant, and the Complainant’s postal code, telephone number, and logo were used in the signature
block in order to deceive the recipient into believing that the email actually came f rom the Complainant.
...Further, considering the use of the disputed domain name in perpetuating f raud, it is quite clear that the
Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and the
intent to benef it f inancially f rom the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
The Complainant has registered rights in the Mark,
among them the European Union Intellectual Property Of f ice (“EUIPO”) with Registration No. 017912377,
registered on January 9, 2019, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Of f ice (“UKIPO”) with Registration
No. ...The Respondent’s use of the top level domain “.shop” in the disputed domain name does not
suf f iciently distinguish the disputed domain name f rom the Complainant’s Marks.
The Respondent cannot claim the right to use the disputed domain name under fair use, since it includes the
Mark and the additional phrase “2025top” which creates a risk of implied af f iliation by suggesting to users
that the content and services and the disputed domain name contains an authorized or of f icial list of “top”
OnlyFans content creators for 2025.
...
2025-10-24 - Case Details
page 3
There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules to prevent the Panel f rom
determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to f ile a
Response. ...Although the addition of other terms here, letter “i” may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such letter does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity
between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
The
Respondents are using the disputed domain names to solicit personal information f rom individuals who will
then become potentially vulnerable to the Respondents’ likely f raudulent undertakings. ...Three of the disputed domain
names include minor additions of either the letter “l” or number “1”, and all of the disputed domain names add
various TLDs (i.e., “.baby”, “.me”, “.shop” or “.club”). The Panel f inds that these deviations f rom the
Complainant’s trademark do not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between all of the disputed domain
names and that mark, because the consensus of prior Policy decisions has found that the addition
of other terms does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark for
the purposes of the Policy, and the applicable TLD in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration
requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. ...
2025-10-13 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the addition of the
term “sigara” which informally translates into “cigarette” and of the term “vip” to the IQ Trademarks in the
Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity. The Complainant asserts that the
Respondent has attempted to employ an obvious or intentional misspelling of its IQOS Trademarks by
omitting the letter “o” and this omission is not suf f icient to prevent a f inding of confusing similarity. ...The Respondent is
also apparently selling products f rom the Complainant’s competitors. The Respondent is making an
extensive use of the Complainant’s IQ and IQOS Trademarks on its website while trying to pass of f as the
Complainant or someone af f iliated with it. ...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
While the addition of other terms, here, “beirut” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...In summary, based on the available record, the Panel is not prepared to conclude without further evidence
that One Travel s.a.r.l. is not a legitimate or bona f ide business, and accordingly f inds that the second
element of the Policy has not been established.
...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent has the right to use common dictionary words to describe the contents of its
website using its domain name providing that he is not trading of f the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has not been established.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.
The Respondent asks for a f inding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
The Panel makes such a f inding for the following reasons.
...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
Procedural Issue – Supplemental Filings
The Complainant submitted unsolicited supplemental f ilings on April 16, 2024 and April 17, 2024 and
requested the Panel to accept them.
The Panel reviewed these supplemental f ilings and decided to accept them for the below reasons.
Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules grant the Panel sole discretion to determine the admissibility of
supplemental f ilings (including further statements or documents) received f rom either Party.
The Complainant’s submissions include several email communications sent to third parties f rom email
accounts associated with some of the disputed domain names that were forwarded to the Complainant af ter
the f iling of the amended Complaint. ...
2024-05-01 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed
impersonation/passing of f , constitutes bad faith. (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.) Considering the
appearance and use of the Disputed Domain Name website to sell goods purporting to be under the
DANSKO brand, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent has attempted to pass of f as an of f icial
website of the Complainant and/or pass of f as being af f iliated with the Complainant, to benef it f rom the
reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s DANSKO brand and trademarks. ...
2024-09-23 - Case Details
The Complainant’s website located at the domain name
, however, indicates that the Complainant is a f inancial services provider that matches
lenders with lendees.
The Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 7,420,517 EAGLE DATA in class 42,
having a registration date of June 18, 2024, and a f irst use in commerce date of May 1, 2018.
...The Complainant was therefore either made aware of the nature of the bad faith requirement and chose to
f ile the Complaint anyway, knowing it could not succeed, or the Complainant recklessly f iled the Complaint
without properly considering the documents he relied upon for f iling the Complaint. ...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
On January 12 and 13, 2026, the Center received the
Respondent’s supplemental f ilings submitted by email. On January 14, 2026, the Center received the
Complainant’s supplemental f ilings submitted by email.
...The
Panel f inds no evidence that the Complainant brought the present proceeding in an abusive manner.
The Respondent’s request for a f inding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is therefore denied.
7. ...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.7.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...Complainant also shows the MX records for the disputed domain name indicate that Respondent may also
be using it for sending f raudulent emails.
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. ...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
The Website also includes a f ine print disclaimer at the
bottom of the home page “This tool is not af f iliated with Facebook or Meta Platforms, Inc.”
...See section 1.11.1 of
the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Given the above, the Panel f inds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FB
trademark. Thus, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-01-29 - Case Details